ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi for respondents. 2. Upon joint request and consent of learned advocates for the parties, this matter is taken up for the final hearing. 3. By way of this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following reliefs are prayed for: “(A) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition. (B) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside the order below Exhibit-12 in Family Suit No. 32 of 2016 dated 28.07.2016 in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant stay as to execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order passed by learned Family Court, Surat in order below Exh.12 in Family Suit No. 32 of 2016 dated 28.07.2016 in the interest of justice. (D) xxx xxx xxx” 4. Learned advocate for petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner has filed Family Suit No. 32 of 2016 before the learned Family court, Surat for a relief of confirmation of the customary divorce deed dated 17.11.2015 executed between the petitioner and respondent whereby the relationship of husband and wife had come to an end. In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent-wife filed an application Exhibit-12, the said application came to be allowed and the learned Family Court, Surat passed following order on 28.07.2016: “The application is hereby partly allowed. The petitioner husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the respondent wife and Rs. 3,000/- p.m. (Rupees Three thousand only) to minor daughter Kashvi towards their maintenance pendente lite from the date of this application i.e. 14-06-2016 till the final disposal of this suit. The petitioner is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondent wife towards expenses of the proceedings. The amount of this order shall be adjusted against any order regarding maintenance of the respondent passed in any matter filed between the parties of this suit.” 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.06.2015 at Vadodara, as per Hindu rites and ceremony. The amount of this order shall be adjusted against any order regarding maintenance of the respondent passed in any matter filed between the parties of this suit.” 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.06.2015 at Vadodara, as per Hindu rites and ceremony. Out of the said wedlock a daughter named Kashvi was borne. The dispute cropped up between the parties, and on 17.11.2015 the customary divorce deed was executed between petitioner and respondent in presence of witnesses. It is submitted that one of the witnesses was father of the present respondent. It is submitted that after the said customary divorce deed, there was no relationship of husband and wife between the parties. For the confirmation of said customary divorce deed, a family suit being Family Suit No. 32 of 2016 under Section 7(b) of the Family Court Act came to be filed by the present petitioner wherein the respondent-wife moved an application Exhibit-12 for interim maintenance. It is further submitted that the respondent-wife has also initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Family Court, Vadodara. It is further submitted that both the proceedings are pending for final adjudication. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has allowed the application Exhibit-12 and without appreciating the submissions of the petitioner, granted the application. It is further submitted the order impugned is passed on presumption of income and in absence of specific evidence regarding the income of the petitioner. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Dipika Amrutbhai Patel vs. Vishwam Parmanand Patel, 2011 (0) AIR (CC) 1130. 7. Per contra learned advocate for the respondent has vehemently submitted that the order impugned does not require any interference inasmuch as looking at the conduct of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the order impugned is dated 28.07.2016 and till today, the petitioner has not paid any amount towards the maintenance. It is further submitted that on 17.11.2016, this Court has issued notice only for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement. However, after the order of this Court, the petitioner-husband has neither taken any steps for settlement nor deposited any maintenance amount. It is further submitted that on 17.11.2016, this Court has issued notice only for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement. However, after the order of this Court, the petitioner-husband has neither taken any steps for settlement nor deposited any maintenance amount. It is further submitted that the petitioner-husband has not produced any document regarding income and properties in support of his case. It is further contended by learned advocate for the respondents that the evidence with regard to income of the petitioner, husband has not produced any evidence and thus, in absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner-husband, the learned Trial Court has rightly granted the application which does not require any interference. It is further submitted that the petitioner-husband is coming from a well to do family and having a degree of MBBS and is the owner of the Multi-specialist Hospital at Surat and earning very handsomely. Petitioner has also ancestral agricultural lands at Dakor. With a view to deprive the respondent- wife from the maintenance, by one reason or other petitioner is dragging litigation. It is further submitted that since the date of separation, the respondent-wife and her minor daughter are being maintained by the father of respondent and petitioner is not taking care of his wife as well as minor daughter. Learned advocate for respondent has also relied upon the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which is reproduced herein-under: “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 8. Learned advocate for respondents has placed reliance on following decisions: 1. Sunil Harishbhai Patel vs. Mrs. Bijal Sunil Patel, 1994 (1) GLH 78 2. Pavan Dahyabhai Patel vs. Vaishanavi (Puja) D/o Narendrabhai Ranjitbhai Mali in Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2020 dated 18.08.2022 3. Archana Amit Shah and Another vs. Amit Hasmukhbhai Shah in Special Civil Application No. 14887 of 2017 9. Decision in Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2020, arising between the petitioner and respondent, the present petitioner had challenged the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1343 of 2015. It is further submitted that the said Criminal Misc. Application No. 1343 of 2015 was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. Application No. 1343 of 2015. It is further submitted that the said Criminal Misc. Application No. 1343 of 2015 was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance. The present petitioner challenged the order dated 30.11.2019, by way of a Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2020, which also came to be rejected by this Court on 18.08.2022. It is further submitted that the respondent-wife also filed a Criminal Revision Application No. 309 of 2021 before this Court for enhancement of maintenance, wherein this Court has enhanced the maintenance amount of respondent-wife from Rs. 20,000/- per month to Rs. 25,000/- per month and Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month for the minor daughter from 01.01.2019. However, despite this order, the petitioner-husband has not complied with the order and has not paid any amount of maintenance. 10. Having considered the submissions and the papers placed on record, this is the case whereby the petitioner-husband seems to be a head strong person and has no respect for the wife and minor daughter. Despite the order passed by the learned Family Court on 28.07.2016, the petitioner-husband is avoiding the compliance of said order. This Court has taken very serious note of the fact that the vide order dated 17.11.2016 by this Court, a notice was issued only for exploring the possibility of settlement. However, the petitioner-husband has with disrespected the order passed by this Court and did not take any steps for settlement. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out any single instance whereby it could be seen that an attempt was made by the petitioner for amicable settlement. The petitioner-husband has played smartly by filing a Family Civil Suit No. 32 of 2016, after the respondent-wife initiated maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1343 of 2015. It is found from the order dated 18.08.2022 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2020 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the order of maintenance passed by the learned Family Court, Vadodara on 30.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1343 of 2015 was challenged by petitioner and the said Criminal Revision Application came to be rejected and the amount of maintenance has been enhanced by this Court. Application No. 1343 of 2015 was challenged by petitioner and the said Criminal Revision Application came to be rejected and the amount of maintenance has been enhanced by this Court. The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that the simultaneous proceedings are pending for its adjudication and thus, in the background of such factual scenario, the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the application Exhibit-12 has no force in as much as looking at the conduct of the petitioner which is highly condemnable. Further if such contention is accepted no court could pass any order. The Court is not suppose to wait for the conclusion of ancillary proceedings or any cognate proceedings, unless, there are chances of arriving at conflicting decisions. Another example of smart tectics by the petitioner is that learned advocate for petitioner submitted that during the course of hearing, instructions were sought for from the petitioner and the petitioner requested to adjourn this matter for few days since the dispute has been settled between the parties. However, learned advocate for the respondents upon instructions has stated that no settlement has taken place and as per submission of the learned advocate for the respondent, this is an attempt by the petitioner to avoid the compliance of the order dated 28.07.2016. 11. Thus, this Court finds that the intention of the petitioner is to avoid implementing the order. Since 2016 till today petitioner has not paid any amount of maintenance to the respondent. 12. The learned advocate for the respondents during the hearing, upon instructions, stated that approximately an amount of Rs. 9,42,000/- is due as on today. 13. The petitioner-husband has not produced any iota of evidence to substantiate his income. By suppressing the information/document, it cannot be said that learned trial Court has presumed the income and passed an order. If the petitioner-husband suppresses best available evidence, the learned trial Court has power to grant reasonable maintenance by considering the family background of petitioner, his education and nature of work or profession. The learned Family Court was not supposed to wait till the other proceedings are concluded. In absence of showing actual income by petitioner, the learned Family Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion and passed a reasonable amount of maintenance. 14. In the case of Dipika Amrutbhai Patel (supra), the facts of case were different from facts of present case. The learned Family Court was not supposed to wait till the other proceedings are concluded. In absence of showing actual income by petitioner, the learned Family Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion and passed a reasonable amount of maintenance. 14. In the case of Dipika Amrutbhai Patel (supra), the facts of case were different from facts of present case. In the present case, the respondent-wife has initiated proceedings for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter, the petitioner-husband has filed Family Suit No. 32 of 2016 for the confirmation of customary divorce deed. 15. The Scope under Article 227 is very narrow and unless this Court finds that the learned Family Court has committed any error of law, this Court would not interfere in the decision. This Court does not find any perversity in finding arrived at by learned Family Court. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the aspect that the petitioner-husband has not produced any document to show his income. The learned trial Court has considered the education qualification of the petitioner, who is having a degree of MBBS and is having Multi-specialist Hospital at Surat. Looking to the educational qualifications, status of petitioner and non production of any material qua income, the order of the maintenance is reasonable and well within the purview of law. Thus, this petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. It is directed that the petitioner- husband shall comply with the order dated 28.07.2016 within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. 16. It is needless to observe that the learned Family Court shall decide the proceedings independently and without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove. 17. At this stage, learned advocate for the respondents has prayed for imposing the cost on the petitioner. In view of above observations the imposing cost is not entertained at this stage. 18. Learned Family Court, Surat is directed to decide the Family Suit No. 32 of 2016 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and both the parties shall not ask unnecessary adjournments and shall give full cooperation to the learned Family Court in expeditious hearing of the family suit.